A FB friend linked to a video of the lovely Jennifer Lawrence talking about politics... Represent Us So I took the time to watch it. Represent Us propose corruption and financial influence by the wealthy and business as The Problem. This is based on a Princeton Paper.
It seemed enticing however my BS alarm went off so I did a little looking. Especially when Jennifer stated the policies that she felt were being held back by our wealthy tyrants. Thankfully VOX Offered 3 Rebuttals and saved me some time.
The idea that American Policies are not being passed because of rich people and lobbyists is somewhat laughable if you think about it. I mean almost half of our population wants more government intervention in our personal lives, higher taxes and more hand outs (ie wealth redistribution). And half wants the exact opposite.
Thoughts?
G2A What would make American's Happy
G2A Political Tribes Continue
It seemed enticing however my BS alarm went off so I did a little looking. Especially when Jennifer stated the policies that she felt were being held back by our wealthy tyrants. Thankfully VOX Offered 3 Rebuttals and saved me some time.
The idea that American Policies are not being passed because of rich people and lobbyists is somewhat laughable if you think about it. I mean almost half of our population wants more government intervention in our personal lives, higher taxes and more hand outs (ie wealth redistribution). And half wants the exact opposite.
Thoughts?
G2A What would make American's Happy
G2A Political Tribes Continue
43 comments:
“I mean almost half of our population wants more government intervention in our personal lives, higher taxes and more hand outs (ie wealth redistribution). And half wants the exact opposite.“
That’s just plain false.
The other side wants more government intervention in our personal lives, tax cuts for only the wealthy, and a different kind of wealth redistribution.
Moose
What oligarchs want low or nonexistent taxes. They get that.
--Hiram
Now you 2 do realize that the US Tax code is still pretty down right progressive don't you?
If the rich were ruling the country wouldn't it be flat or regressive?
A Source
Now you 2 do realize that the US Tax code is still pretty down right progressive don't you?
Not at all. Amazon pays no tax. How is that progressive?
But generally, the tax code isn't progressive because it focuses on income, which for wealthy people plays a very small role in their appreciation of wealth. Bezos pays himself 82,000 a year. He didn't get to be the richest person in the world by pinching pennies.
--Hiram
A while back someone proposed a wealth tax, AOS or someone. I had an argument with a guy who talked about how ignorant AOS, how unfeasible her proposal was because there was no effective way to tax wealth. He was right, and I lost that argument, somewhat embarrassingly. The point I lost there is the one I make here, that wealth goes largely untaxed which is why any system that does not include wealth is likely to be extremely regressive.
--Hiram
"A Source"
Any "analysis" of the progressivity of the tax code that leaves out everything that isn't federal income taxes is trying to snow you. (Because literally every other form of taxes isn't progressive. Yes, overall, even if you take those into account, it's progressive, but nowhere near as much as the federal income tax code on its own.)
And it should also be noted the federal tax code has gotten significantly less progressive since 1960.
Piketty and Saez NBER paper
Of course, the bigger problem than the tax code itself is the fact that income and wealth is concentrating. Over the last 40 years, only the top 10% have seen their incomes grow at a similar rate as GDP.
NYT: How the Upper Middle Class is Really Doing
"A while back someone proposed a wealth tax, AOS or someone."
<a href="https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/24/18196275/elizabeth-warren-wealth-tax>VOX: Warren Wealth Tax</a>
Make that:
VOX: Warren Wealth Tax
Sean,
Please remember my view...
- Payroll taxes are not really a tax because we have decided that people are entitled to their benefits whether they paid enough or not. And the fact that benefits are capped, thus contributions are capped.
- The cash and services that poor people receive from the government are a negative tax and should be treated as such when determining actual "tax rates"
- Property tax rates are usually progressive. (higher rate on more valuable property)
- State Income taxes are usually progressive, especially since middle income and higher folks do not receive "negative tax" benefits.
- Inheritance taxes are highly progressive.
- Even vehicle license taxes are progressive.
- It seems that only sales, sin and gas taxes are regressive...
Do have any idea how your links handled the huge increases in:
- Welfare payments
- Medicaid
- Social security
- Medicare
- Food programs
- etc
That have occurred since 1960?
The people in the middle may not have benefitted from these, but those folks on the bottom end certainly did.
State taxes in whole are regressive. Heck, the 2019 Tax Incidence Study for the State of Minnesota, which is an every-other year report on this, came out today!
Property and license tabs are not progressive. People of lower income pay much higher percentages of their income on these taxes.
Now as how to tax wealth...
And if we should that is more sticky...
I mean if Amazon falters and the Bezos fortune declines to half of what it was. Can he apply for a credit?
Listen, if you want to put in the cost of welfare, etc. then you need to look at the cost of various programs and tax breaks that disproportionately benefit the wealthy.
Perhaps you should read about the how the wealth tax works instead of doing your usual uninformed rambling.
- Property tax rates are usually progressive. (higher rate on more valuable property)
We tax people, not property. I am pretty sure your backyard has never written a check to the government.
In it's broadest sense, progressive taxes mean the more wealth an individual the more he pays in taxes. Looking at it this way, even a flat tax is progressive, since the amount actually paid increases with the income.
The basic thing to understand about all taxes is that what matters is the amount you pay, not the rate of taxation, which may not even have that much to do with the final tax bill.
By the way, another thing that doesn't matter is the specific way the tax is used. Dedicated taxes are paid with the same dollars as undedicated taxes. What matter is what you pay to the government, not the account in which the government deposits the funds.
--Hiram
Sean,
I assume you are talking about mortgage deductions?
Please remember that those are to stimulate home ownership, they are not a hand out...
Where as giving away Medicaid, food money, housing allowances, Medicare, Social Security, etc are just welfare expenses... That is unless you are trying to encourage people to stay poor...
I read the WHOLE THING.... What did I misunderstand?
Hiram,
A flat tax is a system under which all taxpayers pay taxes at the same percentage rate of their total income.
And if it is how much you pay that matters. Then I am pretty sure that Bezos and crew pay a whole lot more in taxes each year than you or me. They probably do this with just their sales taxes and property taxes.
I do agree that taxes are taxes, no matter where you pay them to.
It's kind of a joke that you think there's a meaningful distinction between the mortgage deduction and "housing allowances". They both reduce the out-of-pocket cost for housing. You like the former because you benefit from it, and you don't like the latter because people you find to be inferior benefit from it.
But there's a whole list of ways that people who are wealthy benefit in ways that people that aren't wealthy don't. Preferential rates for non-labor income. Heck, under the new GOP tax law, the wealthy are far more likely to benefit from charitable donations than non-wealthy folks. Many types of Retirement savings, HSAs and 529s are essentially tax shelters for upper middle class to wealthy folks.
I am fine if we drop the mortgage interest deduction, however it may harm the housing industry and construction jobs. The deduction encourages people to buy / build bigger homes and then work to pay for them. Good & good for our economy.
Housing allowances are just gifts to those who are under educated, under employed, single parents. I am not sure what you seek to encourage.
Yes people who pay very high tax rates benefit by giving their money away or investing it for the long term. Both are planned policies to encourage those with money to use it in a certain way. Are you against charity and investment?
"Then I am pretty sure that Bezos and crew pay a whole lot more in taxes each year than you or me."
Well, no. Bezos wealth comes in ways that aren't recognized for income tax purposes, mainly in appreciation of his stock holding in Amazon. His salary at Amazon is 82,000 dollars a year, on which I am sure he pays income tax.
--Hiram
"The deduction encourages people to buy / build bigger homes and then work to pay for them. Good & good for our economy."
That didn't work out so well for the economy circa 2008, did it?
"Housing allowances are just gifts to those who are under educated, under employed, single parents."
Thank you for proving my point. Reducing the cost of housing for people like John is OK. Reducing the cost of housing for not-virtuous-enough people is bad.
"Are you against charity and investment?"
Not at all. But, a dollar of income is a dollar of income and should (generally speaking) be recognized as such. Right now, a heir who just sits on money they did nothing to earn other than be born lucky pays lower taxes on the marginal dollar they make from interest and dividends than the person who works two jobs to put food on the table for their family.
When it comes to charity, Jeff Bezos gets a large tax writeoff for his charity, something most Americans don't get anymore. (Under the new tax law, about 90% of Americans won't get to itemize their deductions)
Hiram,
But he owns very expensive property and pays for a lot of things. So I think he pays a LOT of Taxes... Far more than you or me.
I am thinking homes prices are doing pretty good again.
Again, what good behavior are you trying to encourage housing subsidies?
Something that grows our economy, raises wages, etc?
Giving Paul some of Peter's money should come with strings or benefits for the country.
Correction: They will likely get more savings by not itemizing. Now this may be bad for charities, however I assume most people will prefer the money...
"
Impact on Charities
"Again, what good behavior are you trying to encourage housing subsidies?"
The behavior of people having places to live.
"They will likely get more savings by not itemizing."
Some will, some won't. We moved out of itemizing deductions this year, and the loss of the personal exemption actually caused our taxes to go up slightly. Thanks Trump!
I must have missed the long term benefit to our society and country of having Peter pay Paul's rent?
I am assuming my taxes will be higher this year also... That is the bummer of living in high taxed state when they take away part of the write off. I am also not sure how our friend Dayton vetoing the tax conformity bill impacted this year...
On the upside, we can all feel we are giving more to support the poor, destitute and our military. :-)
This piece seems related, what timing.
You're seriously arguing that helping people afford a place to live doesn't benefit society?
I guess I am to some extent...
If the goal is to just keep people safe with a stable mailing address, maybe dorms would be better?
My thought is that welfare is supposed to be a temporary payment to help people through rough times.
I am not sure why tax payers subsidize housing? (ie 1 and 2 bedroom apartments, town homes, etc)
Does it create jobs, grow the economy, other?
Tax breaks for the rich are a form of welfare. Is there anything temporary about them?
--Hiram
So if you are paying 25% of your income as compared to other people paying 10%.
Let's say $250,000 of your $1,000,000 income to their...
$5,000 on their $50,000 income...
And they reduce your tax rate to 23% so you are only paying $230,000 to support our government and society...
You think that is like getting a check from the government for $20,000?
And it is somewhat immaterial that you are paying 46 times what the other individual is paying to live in the same country?
Now I agree that the rich have to pay the bills since they have the money, but come on...
G2A What is Fair with regard to Taxes?
So if you are paying 25% of your income as compared to other people paying 10%.
I do when it's Bezos when the 25% he pays is of 82,000 dollars.
--Hiram
I think you are forgetting what the articles said about Bezos selling shares, owning a lot of property with high taxes, etc.
I think you are forgetting what the articles said about Bezos selling shares, owning a lot of property with high taxes, etc.
Sure, but in terms of his overall wealth, these taxes are miniscule.
I lost that argument about taxing wealth. I just couldn't offer an effective way of doing it.
--Hiram
I think Sean's VOX Link did a good job of explaining wealth taxes and their pros / cons.
This an interesting Forbes piece
It's one of my rules. We tax the politically weak and we tax those who are easy to tax. It's not that a wealth tax would be good or bad policy, rather they are out of favor because they are difficult to impose.
--Hiram
You are probably correct...
The wealthy minority pay for most of our government and social expenses.
That is an advantage of living in a democracy...
The majority can raise the taxes on the minority and distribute the funds amongst themselves.
The wealthy have benefited most. I don't see that they have a lot to complain about.
--Hiram
That is how the liberal argument goes...
The wealthy citizen who was more effective, saved more, worker harder, took more risks, or was lucky should pay the bills for the poor citizen who did / was none of the above.
The wealthy citizen who was more effective, saved more, worker harder, took more risks, or was lucky should pay the bills for the poor citizen who did / was none of the above.
Rich people benefit more from living in America than poor people. I have no problem in taxing them more.
--Hiram
Yes. I know that...
Post a Comment